Summary
distinguishing between "a finder (who finds, interests, introduces and brings the parties together for the deal which they themselves negotiate and consummate) and a broker (whose duty is to bring the parties to an agreement on his employer's terms)"
Summary of this case from Tayyib Bosque, Corp. v. Emily Realty, LLCOpinion
Argued March 18, 1969 —
Decided July 1, 1969.
Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Mr. Albert G. Besser argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Hannoch, Weisman, Stern Besser, attorneys; Mr. James J. Shrager on the brief).
Mr. William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Stryker, Tams Dill, attorneys; Mr. William S. Tucker, Jr. on the brief).
We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division. 102 N.J. Super. 1 ( App. Div. 1968). However, without proof that it is generally recognized in the finder's business or profession that "in contracts of this type, absent specific contractual language to the contrary, there is an implied prerequisite of `authority to offer' which must exist between the candidate and the agent-broker" ( 102 N.J. Super. 9), we are not prepared to agree with that conclusion of the Appellate Division.
Affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.
For reversal — None.